Democrats and the liberal media are slamming President Trump for packing federal courts with supposedly “unfit” judges. Nonsense. Trump’s nominees have impressive credentials.
What’s the left’s real gripe? These judges will decide cases based on what the US Constitution says, instead of rewriting law to suit a progressive agenda.
Look for fireworks in the Senate Wednesday, when the American Bar Association tries to justify rating several of Trump’s nominees “not qualified.” Such ABA ratings are a political hit job masquerading as high-minded objectivity.
Consider the ABA’s “not qualified” rating of Leonard Steven Grasz, a Nebraska attorney nominated to the appeals court. The ABA claims Grasz is unfit because of his “deeply held social agenda.”
One complaint: During 11 years as Nebraska’s chief deputy attorney general, he defended many of the state’s laws, including a ban on partial-birth abortion. But defending that law was his job.
Opposing any limit on abortion is enough to outrage pro-choice activist Cynthia Nance, the law professor who led Grasz’s recent ABA review. She stooped to grilling him on why he sends his children to religious schools — a question that should be out of bounds — instead of sticking to probing his legal philosophy. Apparently, being religious is disqualifying.
Grasz reiterated his “solemn obligation” to put aside personal views and “faithfully apply” Supreme Court precedent. Astonishingly, that’s an assurance the left rejects. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) argues “there’s simply no way to prevent a judge’s . . . personal beliefs from influencing” rulings. The conclusion is obvious. To Democrats like Whitehouse, it’s not about credentials but agendas — and only nominees with left-wing agendas are acceptable.
You can read more here